What is the proof Jesus is eternally begotten son?
- Thread starter TheLearner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Already done, the principle text is John 1 among many other verses that have already been posted. The preponderance of the verses in the Bible about Jesus taken together are why the saints official believe the trinity doctrine and the eternal generation of Jesus, meaning, Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of God, and there was never a time where there was no Jesus, nor did Jesus become Jesus, nor is Jesus merely a mode of God. Furthermore actually denial of Jesus as the eternally begotten Son of God will mean to flirt with damnable heresies either Arianism or modalism, both of which damnable heresies will get you with all certainty, well, damned.
Nope because that would be jumping from the frying pan of Arianism straight into the fire of modalism and confusing the persons of the Godhead together. This is why if one denies any part of the trinity doctrine the only alternative is to jump from error to error, heresy to heresy. The Father is not created, not begotten, not made by any. The Son is not created, nor made, but begotten eternally of the Father. The Holy Spirit is not made, not created, not begotten, but proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.
Thanks PH... I was pretty sure the two words don't occur together in Scripture. As you said in another post, it's messy language. I appreciate your explanation as that was what I was looking for from the OP.
What surprises me is that so many people argue about either word but not about the two words together. The OP in particular considers a heretic anyone who questions the concept, but he can't explain it himself.
My take is this: Jesus is eternal, and Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God. Try mixing the two with "eternally begotten" and you get meaningless bafflegab. The word "eternally" is an adverb; it modifies "begotten" and says nothing whatsoever about the Son Himself. The phrase basically says that a one-time event is eternal, which makes no sense.
Not just me, literally all the saints official. Furthermore not only is it just a mere heresy to deny that Jesus is the only eternally begotten Son of God, but it's actually a very serious heresy, a damnable heresy meaning it's a heresy that will guaranteed get you thrown into the Lake of Fire. Literally every single person that denies that Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of God will in no ways ever attain salvation and they will with full certainty never enter the Kingdom of God. This cannot be stressed enough, only those that hold to the holy faith that Jesus Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God can be saved.
Yawn. I very much doubt it, because that idea is not clearly presented in Scripture. I'm sure God is both far more wise and gracious than to hold eternity against human understanding of a poorly-worded English conflation of two ideas.
Like PostHuman said, it's messy language. Like I said, the wording is grammatically flawed.
So, take your condemnatory railing and throw it in the trash where it belongs... and remember that we are judged on what SCRIPTURE says, not on what men say Scripture says.
Here's a challenge for you: explain what "only begotten" (which is scriptural) means. Don't define "only" or "begotten" but the whole phrase as a unit.
Well you're wrong again, if your issue is just with me then that is easily forgiveable, then just pretend I don't even exist because that will change nothing, the truth will still remain. All the saints official have made it very clear and it is also found in scripture, many of which have already been posted not just by myself, but others too, as well as found within the Creed which has both been posted openly and which summarizes the Bible and is certified by the saints official, that unless you hold the holy faith fully in the only begotten eternal Son of God, you will in no ways ever be saved but will certainly perish eternally, and not just you personally, literally anyone of which even myself is included. Denial of the only eternally begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ is damnation guaranteed, if anyone tells you otherwise they are simply liars and heretics making a merchandise out of you to their own damnation, don't join them.
There is not multiple Jesus, there is one Jesus, thus Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Jesus is not begotten once, nor was he begotten of nothing, nor was there ever a point where he ever became Jesus, nor is Jesus to be confused with the Father or the Hoyl Spirit whom are not begotten, but the Father is all eternal and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding, but Jesus has always been Jesus from eternity past to eternity future, thus Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of God. Jesus Christ same yesterday, today, and forever, the only eternally begotten Son of God. Furthermore unless one believes fully in the holy faith of the only eternally begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, they will in no ways ever be saved, but will with all certainty perish eternally.
You seem to hold the creed in very high regard. That's fine, but when you allow the wording of the creed to supersede Scripture, you're on shaky ground. The only "saints" in Scripture are the believers in Christ; there is no such thing as "saints official".
Exactly how many times do you think Jesus was begotten, if not once?
That is a meaningless statement.
There you go again with the odd phrase. You are advocating the idea that the begetting of Jesus is an eternal action. You might want to think that through carefully.
That's not what Scripture says.
Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Nothing there about "eternally begotten Son". There is nothing anywhere else in Scripture about the "eternally begotten Son". So, again, toss your condemnatory railing in the trash where it belongs, stop being a clanging cymbal, and pay more careful attention.
What you have completely failed to see yet is that you're arguing vehemently about two words without examining what they mean when set together. You haven't carefully read what I've written, and instead have made assumptions about me that are not rooted in any sort of truth.
Scripture teaches clearly that Jesus is eternal, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that Jesus is, Himself, God. We don't need to obfuscate the truth by appealing to archaic phrases written by men. Creeds have their place, but when they only serve to bring confusion and disagreement, they should be cast aside in favour of the plain word of God.
What is the proof Jesus is the Christian view that he is eternally begotten son?
Origin
The phrase was likely coined by Saint Athanasius, a secretary to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, to defend the early Trinitarian theology of the time.
Biblical evidence
The Bible contains passages that support the eternal generation of the Son, including passages that speak of the Father “giving” and the Son “receiving”.
Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed states, "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father".
The church councils do not have the authority from God to decide who does and who does not belong to Jesus. There is one judge of that, and it's not you or them.
The church councils do no have the authority from God to extrapolate from scripture by logically fallible human reasoning in order to arrive at mandatory tenets that are not explicitly stated in scripture.
The concept of "eternally begotten" is not unambuguously biblically explicit, and is not therefore biblically mandatory on anyone. Believe it if you like, but by demanding everyone believe it and anathemising those who do not, you are a schismatic (frecturing the one body of Christ) and a heretic (attempting to draw others away from their conscience to submit to your particular faction).
Isaiah 38:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, “This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover.”
2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, 3 “Remember, Lord, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: 5 “Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life. 6 And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city.
7 “‘This is the Lord’s sign to you that the Lord will do what he has promised: 8 I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.’” So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down.
Your claims do not match up with scripture. Clearly, God did not know Hezekiah would repent, and changed Hezekiah's future when He did.
What scripture are you citing to show that "God the Father being a father to the Son eternally". What scripture can you cite that would show that "your/my/our Father God" always in all contexts means only one Person of the Trinity. It seem to me that sometimes the Son is called Father, and sometimes the Father and Holy Spirit working together are called Father, and sometimes all three are together called Father. A father is the one who generates children. If a committee can father an agenda or a charter or a constitution, the trinity can father, and be the Father of, Jesus of Nazareth.
verb: father; 3rd person present: fathers; past tense: fathered; past participle: fathered; gerund or present participle: fathering
- (of a man) cause a pregnancy resulting in the birth of (a child).
"he fathered three children"
Similar:
be the father of, sire, engender, generate, bring into being, bring into the world, give life to, spawn, procreate, reproduce, breed, beget
- treat with the protective care associated with a father.
- be the source or originator of.
"a culture which has fathered half the popular music in the world"
Similar:
establish, institute, originate, initiate, put in place, invent, found, create, generate, conceive
- assign the paternity of a child or responsibility for a book, idea, or action to.
"a collection of Irish stories was fathered on him" - archaic
appear as or admit that one is the father or originator of.
"a singular letter from a lady, requesting I would father a novel of hers" (Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages)
Jesus is called "everlasting Father" in Is. 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
The Holy Spirit and the Almighty are attributed with the fatherhood of Jesus in Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Personally, I think it creates some major problems, if we always read "the Father of Jesus Christ" as being only the one Divine Person sometimes referred to theologically as "God the Father". I think we would be wise to sometimes read "Father of Jesus" as all the Persons acting in communion, and sometimes, during Jesus ministry, as the Holy Spirit and Father acting in communion.
You haven't cited anything yet that shows what you are claiming the Bible teaches and mandates. A Bible reference is not a citation. You need to cite them, i.e. quote the verses and identify where they can be found in scripture, and then state what you are claiming those cited verses are saying, or vice versa. You are being too sloppy in your argumentation.
"A citation is typically an academic reference used to show your source(s) of information that you used to base a paper or article or argument or whatever on. Even though the information may have been compiled and put into my own words, it's still not my information/research, and the original authors/researchers should be cited. To cite in this context is synonynous with to credit someone / to give someone credit .
Sure, Christ the Son is sent by the godhead -
Genesis 19:24, Exodus 23:20, Matthew 15:24, John 17:18, etc
and the Spirit is sent by the godhead -
Psalm 104:30, John 14:26, 16:7, etc
but where is the Father proceeding from the Son?
@PaulThomson
Ran out of time didn't realize i was editing, sorry... partial repost:
Sure, Christ the Son is sent by the godhead -
Genesis 19:24, Exodus 23:20, Matthew 15:24, John 17:18, etc
and the Spirit is sent by the godhead -
Psalm 104:30, John 14:26, 16:7, etc
but where is the Father proceeding from the Son or the Spirit?
so you see Arius's point of view, that the only begotten Son seems subservient to the Father, and having been begotten, is perhaps seemingly not equal. not coeternal. we see in fact exactly the same heresy today in oneness pentecostalism - - apparently forming creeds and condemning heresy does absolutely nothing to get rid of false doctrine, it just makes sure those false teachers are not in your territory anymore, lol.
unfortunately we don't have minutes of the debates that took place at Nicea. we just have letters from Constantine describing what was agreed on, and we have the creed. from these together, and knowing what the controversy was, we piece out what must have been the thrust of the winning, persuasive arguments: the idea that Christ was created was unanimously rejected, and a doctrine was set forth in a creed all swore to including the phrase that Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God.